I personally don't think that evidence is sufficient to proving God. I believe that the best way to show the likelihood of God's existence is to show that the opposition is simply not possible. This goes back to origin, infinite regress, a necessitated first cause, etc.

Ignorance and incredulity does not show that no god is not possible.

I fully expect you to believe that, you are on the opposing side after all. However, does this mean that you propose that existence is uncaused?

Please stop mistaking what I am saying. Just because science can't directly work with God doesn't mean that science can't come to a supernatural conclusion. I also don't see the logic behind stating that God didn't do something just because we can't prove or disprove what he did via the scientific method.

Once again, we do have knowledge of what God did via the Bible. We aren't going in completely blind. The Bible gives us the origin story. But we don't need to be able to apply the scientific method to God creating the universe out of nothing in order to be able to conclude that that is what happened.

Ignoring God and leaving him out of science is the same as stating he does not exist. If God did exist, then he would be the first cause, he would be the answer that scientists seek. So when science answers these questions with an answer that does not involve God, that means that these scientists are excluding God.

If science was a living entity, it might not be able to explain absolutely everything, but that doesn't mean it would automatically reject certain explanations. It wouldn't be agnostic or apathetic towards anything.

If science seeks the answer, then there shouldn't be any possibility that is by definition impossible for science to conclude. If God does exist, then a science that can't arrive at a God conclusion is flawed. Just because science can't fully explain every single aspect of something, doesn't mean that it can't consider it to possibly exist.

Saying "Science is the only possible means to obtain a correct answer. Science can only arrive at natural conclusions, therefore a natural conclusion must be the correct answer." is a logical fallacy. It relies upon your own assumptions to be true. A science that can't arrive at any possible conclusion is a science limited by bias, whether it can fully explain the conclusion or not.

I don't know where to start with the straw men and inaccuracies here because it is strewn with them, so I'm just going to cut to the chase.... again.

Science is methodologically naturalistic. It doesn't assume god exists. It doesn't assume god doesn't exist. It doesn't assume god did something. It doesn't assume god didn't do something. Science can only arrive at natural conclusions, but that does not eliminate god from being the cause of those natural conclusions.

You've got this bee stuck in your bonnet where science (or scientists) is out there to show god doesn't exist because it starts with the assumption that god doesn't exist. It really, really isn't doing that. Science doesn't give a toss. I fear you are projecting your parallel assumption to gain some leverage and equal footing with science, but you've started a competition with an opponent not competing for the same trophy. You'd have better luck platting fog.

So then why don't people believe in God, a creator or the supernatural? If science is the reason, then doesn't that contradict with everything you just said? You act as if believing something that contradicts with the existence of God isn't simultaneously believing that God does not exist. How can science that states an existence which contradicts God also claim that it is still possible for God to exist? It makes it seem like science is just one grand "That's the best we can do." assumption that may or may not be correct based on information that science believes we can not obtain.

I personally don't think that evidence is sufficient to proving God. I believe that the best way to show the likelihood of God's existence is to show that the opposition is simply not possible. This goes back to origin, infinite regress, a necessitated first cause, etc.

Question for you Spinner. Some folks that study astrophysics are proposing that there was a universe before the big bang, and that universes may "big bang" into existence over and over, essentially meaning that there never was a beginning, a first cause. How do you feel about that possibility? I can look for a link if you want, it has been a while, but I'm sure I can find it.

If something has always existed, I don't think that is a valid excuse to void it of the necessity of being caused. Would this make existence uncaused or would it make it self-causing? Just because it removes the question of a time of origin doesn't mean it removes the question of existence: "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

I personally don't think that evidence is sufficient to proving God. I believe that the best way to show the likelihood of God's existence is to show that the opposition is simply not possible. This goes back to origin, infinite regress, a necessitated first cause, etc.

Ignorance and incredulity does not show that no god is not possible.

I fully expect you to believe that, you are on the opposing side after all. However, does this mean that you propose that existence is uncaused?

I'm not on any side, I just don't believe something you believe. What I propose is that we currently do not have enough information to come to a solid conclusion about "origins", and intuition is a useless piece of arse gravy when it comes to this discipline. We have competing models based on what info we currently do have, but nothing set in stone. You believe you have these answers, claiming this and that is not possible. Are you keeping your Nobel prize secret having exhausted all possible explanations to just leave the answer which just so happens to meet your already held beliefs, or did I just miss it on the news?

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

I've read (but haven't researched it) that the fathers of scientific method did in fact assume God existed. They assumed that a methodological approach to discovering how the world works would be successful because the world was ordered and could thus be explored in this way.

I personally don't think that evidence is sufficient to proving God. I believe that the best way to show the likelihood of God's existence is to show that the opposition is simply not possible. This goes back to origin, infinite regress, a necessitated first cause, etc.

Ignorance and incredulity does not show that no god is not possible.

I fully expect you to believe that, you are on the opposing side after all. However, does this mean that you propose that existence is uncaused?

I'm not on any side, I just don't believe something you believe. What I propose is that we currently do not have enough information to come to a solid conclusion about "origins", and intuition is a useless piece of arse gravy when it comes to this discipline. We have competing models based on what info we currently do have, but nothing set in stone. You believe you have these answers, claiming this and that is not possible. Are you keeping your Nobel prize secret having exhausted all possible explanations to just leave the answer which just so happens to meet your already held beliefs, or did I just miss it on the news?

Like I said earlier, evidence only exists to the extent at which we believe in it. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that by no means can God be proven. That claim is a scientific one, and while it may be directly accurate, it might very well not be accurate in an indirect sense. To some people, God has been proven to them for all intents and purposes. Whether there is truly an ultimate explanation or not, that doesn't mean everybody will believe it.

Even if somebody has an apparent perfect logical explanation, somebody can choose not to believe it because "I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster." or because "But that is refutable because X isn't a 100% perfect fact or because Y might not be correct logic."

Here's the link, Spinner. It's Steven Weinberg talking with Richard Dawkins. It's about at 18 - 19 minutes where he talks about big bangs "burping out" "now and then", time without end. Just thought you might be interested.

@Spinner - Current science can prove a great deal about the state of the early universe. And we learn so much more every year. Science cannot prove the existence of the god of Abraham or Zeus or Krishna or the Hero Twins in the Popul Vuh. However, science can prove that the earth was not created in 7 days. And that lightening bolts are not being thrown by Thor. And that our planet is not sitting on the back of a spider.

The earliest scientists in most cultures were the priests and the healers. They were trying to find the answers to big questions. But it is just silly to try and bend and twist science so that it does not contradict whichever ancient or newage story that we like best.

@MM - You know, I picked those examples because I thought that they illustrated the point that "evidence" that consists of personal opinions or experiences is not evidence at all.

I concede that if my daughter feels more confidant getting all dressed up for her chess tournaments,[1]then she might be able to focus better. But if she doesn't continue to practice and improve her checkmate strategies, she will not continue to do well in chess tournaments. If the silly headband makes her feel good about herself, that is fine. But it will not, in the absence of practice, improve the quality of her game.

The young man I keep "seeing" is always too far away to really see. Sometimes I think it is him, but as the person approaches, he looks completely different. I used to see him walk the neighborhood streets all the time. In my grief over his sudden death, my mind is playing tricks on me.

The accident? You see, the car was real, and it really had a specific number of doors. Just as I see this young man in grief, in a moment of shock and fear, we do not always remember what we see. One of us, or both of us, is wrong.

It makes me nuts that my 7 year old spends so much time thinking about clothes. But she has been this way since she was practically a baby. When she was 3, she would sometimes weep in the morning and rip off her clothes because she did not like what I selected for her to wear to daycare!

So then why don't people believe in God, a creator or the supernatural? If science is the reason, then doesn't that contradict with everything you just said? You act as if believing something that contradicts with the existence of God isn't simultaneously believing that God does not exist. How can science that states an existence which contradicts God also claim that it is still possible for God to exist? It makes it seem like science is just one grand "That's the best we can do." assumption that may or may not be correct based on information that science believes we can not obtain.

You'd have to ask individually why people don't believe gods exist, because there can be a multitude of reasons. Hold on to your hat but get this, if science is a reason for it, then they are wrong to use it as a reason in the same way that you are wrong when you say science assumes god doesn't exist.

Science does not contradict the basic deistic god. It can contradict specific claims about specific gods written in specific texts, but that's it, so it's easy to do science and claim god exists. Theistic scientists do exist, you know.

Science is exactly the best we can do based on what we have to work with. It uses the world we perceive to create models that are consistent with observation. If there is something outside of that perceived world, ie god, then science can't use it. That is not the same as saying there is nothing outside of that perceived world - a distinction which you seem to struggle to grasp.

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

I don't really think it is much different from any other theory on an infinite universe. I think they all have one problem and that is the fact that infinite existence still doesn't explain how they came to exist in the first place. The question of origin is not the question of existence. The infinite big bangs would also imply that this universe would ultimately produce another big bang, but I am seeing scientists are claiming that this universe will not compact again as the pressure of dark matter expanding the universe is greater than the gravitational pull on all of matter, or something like that. That the universe's expansion grows exponentially faster, not slower.

I've read (but haven't researched it) that the fathers of scientific method did in fact assume God existed. They assumed that a methodological approach to discovering how the world works would be successful because the world was ordered and could thus be explored in this way.

Thoughts?

Like Azdgari said, I think most people did assume it. They were simply wrong to.

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

@Spinner - Current science can prove a great deal about the state of the early universe. And we learn so much more every year. Science cannot prove the existence of the god of Abraham or Zeus or Krishna or the Hero Twins in the Popul Vuh. However, science can prove that the earth was not created in 7 days. And that lightening bolts are not being thrown by Thor. And that our planet is not sitting on the back of a spider.

The earliest scientists in most cultures were the priests and the healers. They were trying to find the answers to big questions. But it is just silly to try and bend and twist science so that it does not contradict whichever ancient or newage story that we like best.

How exactly can science prove that the earth was not created in 6 days?

So then why don't people believe in God, a creator or the supernatural? If science is the reason, then doesn't that contradict with everything you just said? You act as if believing something that contradicts with the existence of God isn't simultaneously believing that God does not exist. How can science that states an existence which contradicts God also claim that it is still possible for God to exist? It makes it seem like science is just one grand "That's the best we can do." assumption that may or may not be correct based on information that science believes we can not obtain.

You'd have to ask individually why people don't believe gods exist, because there can be a multitude of reasons. Hold on to your hat but get this, if science is a reason for it, then they are wrong to use it as a reason in the same way that you are wrong when you say science assumes god doesn't exist.

Science does not contradict the basic deistic god. It can contradict specific claims about specific gods written in specific texts, but that's it, so it's easy to do science and claim god exists. Theistic scientists do exist, you know.

Science is exactly the best we can do based on what we have to work with. It uses the world we perceive to create models that are consistent with observation. If there is something outside of that perceived world, ie god, then science can't use it. That is not the same as saying there is nothing outside of that perceived world - a distinction which you seem to struggle to grasp.

However, you accept that certain scientists use science to claim that God does not exist, right? Of course, I don't believe that science inherently contradicts God, it is the common usage of science that claims to contradict God. This might sound contradictory to what I was saying earlier, but really it's not. Science is used by a great deal of scientists to say "God doesn't exist." and the majority of the scientific community have embraced this kind of science. That is the science I am talking about, not pure unbiased science, but rather the science after it is used by scientists who a priori believe God to not exist.

The problem is not with unbiased science, but rather with the majority of scientists who have made science into this new kind of word that teaches the rejection of a possibility of a God. After all, we learn about evolution and the big bang in school, not a creator or God.

I've read (but haven't researched it) that the fathers of scientific method did in fact assume God existed. They assumed that a methodological approach to discovering how the world works would be successful because the world was ordered and could thus be explored in this way.

Thoughts?

Like Azdgari said, I think most people did assume it. They were simply wrong to.

But isn't the alternative to assume (or suspect) that careful methodology will make sense of a world with no methodology behind its existence? That has never seemed to make sense to me.

Like I said earlier, evidence only exists to the extent at which we believe in it. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that by no means can God be proven. That claim is a scientific one, and while it may be directly accurate, it might very well not be accurate in an indirect sense. To some people, God has been proven to them for all intents and purposes. Whether there is truly an ultimate explanation or not, that doesn't mean everybody will believe it.

Even if somebody has an apparent perfect logical explanation, somebody can choose not to believe it because "I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster." or because "But that is refutable because X isn't a 100% perfect fact or because Y might not be correct logic."

That claim isn't a scientific one. It's precisely outside the remit of science to even attempt to prove that....

...and I don't know why you have to bring up the Bible as if it has default authority. I don't care what it says.

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

I think they all have one problem and that is the fact that infinite existence still doesn't explain how they came to exist in the first place.

But... that was my point. What if there never was a first place? It is an interesting possibility, yes?

By first place do you refer to the place that the uncaused first cause would exist, or do you refer to it as a universe where nothing exists? Do you mean to say that all there has ever been is this infinitely looping universe?

Still, if there was no first place or whatever, that only leaves an assumption that this looping universe was either not caused by anything or is self-causing. Two things that I believe are logical fallacies. A cause is a necessity to an effect, and if there was never a cause then there was never an effect. It is saying that the effect led to the cause. Like saying that the existence of an egg led to the chicken laying said egg in the first place. It is working backwards. It is working unnaturally.

Like I said earlier, evidence only exists to the extent at which we believe in it. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that by no means can God be proven. That claim is a scientific one, and while it may be directly accurate, it might very well not be accurate in an indirect sense. To some people, God has been proven to them for all intents and purposes. Whether there is truly an ultimate explanation or not, that doesn't mean everybody will believe it.

Even if somebody has an apparent perfect logical explanation, somebody can choose not to believe it because "I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster." or because "But that is refutable because X isn't a 100% perfect fact or because Y might not be correct logic."

That claim isn't a scientific one. It's precisely outside the remit of science to even attempt to prove that....

...and I don't know why you have to bring up the Bible as if it has default authority. I don't care what it says.

Whether you believe science can or can't prove that God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter, as that is the belief that the majority of atheists and secular scientists have adopted. At least the vocal minority. It is also that belief that has been treated as fact in schools and colleges around the world.

But isn't the alternative to assume (or suspect) that careful methodology will make sense of a world with no methodology behind its existence? That has never seemed to make sense to me.

The bolded describes a universe that is affected by the supernatural. Only a naturalistic universe, one that isn't subject to unpredictable tinkering by forces beyond the possibility of coherent description, can be studied scientifically.

This means little re: gods, mind you. An existing god would just have to be natural, rather than supernatural, and our "laws" of nature just wouldn't be fleshed out enough to describe its reality.

But isn't the alternative to assume (or suspect) that careful methodology will make sense of a world with no methodology behind its existence? That has never seemed to make sense to me.

The bolded describes a universe that is affected by the supernatural. Only a naturalistic universe, one that isn't subject to unpredictable tinkering by forces beyond the possibility of coherent description, can be studied scientifically.

This means little re: gods, mind you. An existing god would just have to be natural, rather than supernatural, and our "laws" of nature just wouldn't be fleshed out enough to describe its reality.

Like I said earlier, natural and supernatural are words used by atheists to define what theists believe. They are unnecessary to creationists.

You have it backwards, the natural world is really within the supernatural world just with added limitations, such as the laws of physics.

I've read (but haven't researched it) that the fathers of scientific method did in fact assume God existed. They assumed that a methodological approach to discovering how the world works would be successful because the world was ordered and could thus be explored in this way.

Thoughts?

Like Azdgari said, I think most people did assume it. They were simply wrong to.

But isn't the alternative to assume (or suspect) that careful methodology will make sense of a world with no methodology behind its existence? That has never seemed to make sense to me.

No, the alternative says nothing about whether there is or isn't a methodology behind its existence. I fear this could lead to a discussion on intelligibility, which is perhaps for somewhere else (or another time as it's beddy-bos here).

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

You have it backwards, the natural world is really within the supernatural world just with added limitations, such as the laws of physics.

Then you believe in an incoherent, utterly random universe. There can be no limit on the supernatural envelope of our universe that keeps it from destroying our universe, for such a limitation would be naturalistic. Any supernatural component to existence would immediately destroy our universe.

Like I said earlier, evidence only exists to the extent at which we believe in it. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that by no means can God be proven. That claim is a scientific one, and while it may be directly accurate, it might very well not be accurate in an indirect sense. To some people, God has been proven to them for all intents and purposes. Whether there is truly an ultimate explanation or not, that doesn't mean everybody will believe it.

Even if somebody has an apparent perfect logical explanation, somebody can choose not to believe it because "I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster." or because "But that is refutable because X isn't a 100% perfect fact or because Y might not be correct logic."

That claim isn't a scientific one. It's precisely outside the remit of science to even attempt to prove that....

...and I don't know why you have to bring up the Bible as if it has default authority. I don't care what it says.

Whether you believe science can or can't prove that God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter, as that is the belief that the majority of atheists and secular scientists have adopted. At least the vocal minority. It is also that belief that has been treated as fact in schools and colleges around the world.

If that was the case, then I'd say that's exactly why it does matter.

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

You have it backwards, the natural world is really within the supernatural world just with added limitations, such as the laws of physics.

Then you believe in an incoherent, utterly random universe. There can be no limit on the supernatural envelope of our universe that keeps it from destroying our universe, for such a limitation would be naturalistic. Any supernatural component to existence would immediately destroy our universe.

Oh I do believe the supernatural and natural exist, but not in the same way you propose. I believe they are pretty much two sides of the same coin.

You are making assumptions on how the supernatural would interact with the natural world.

Like I said earlier, evidence only exists to the extent at which we believe in it. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that by no means can God be proven. That claim is a scientific one, and while it may be directly accurate, it might very well not be accurate in an indirect sense. To some people, God has been proven to them for all intents and purposes. Whether there is truly an ultimate explanation or not, that doesn't mean everybody will believe it.

Even if somebody has an apparent perfect logical explanation, somebody can choose not to believe it because "I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster." or because "But that is refutable because X isn't a 100% perfect fact or because Y might not be correct logic."

That claim isn't a scientific one. It's precisely outside the remit of science to even attempt to prove that....

...and I don't know why you have to bring up the Bible as if it has default authority. I don't care what it says.

Whether you believe science can or can't prove that God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter, as that is the belief that the majority of atheists and secular scientists have adopted. At least the vocal minority. It is also that belief that has been treated as fact in schools and colleges around the world.

If that was the case, then I'd say that's exactly why it does matter.

It's good to have some who simply don't believe because of a lack of evidence, rather than simply because science appears to contradict such beliefs. However, you aren't really the target that needs convincing that the natural doesn't contradict the supernatural, nor do you need convincing that your a priori assumptions lead to the a Godless explanation, as you don't hold such assumptions.

Once again though, a large portion of the scientific community does. If only everyone I debated with held the belief that science isn't sufficient to disprove God, or that the only valid belief was that in science.

You are making assumptions on how the supernatural would interact with the natural world.

No, my conclusion is a consequence of refraining from making such assumptions, the ones you make. You and most theists treat the supernatural as though it were natural. But if there are any boundaries placed on its behaviour at all, then that makes it natural at those boundaries. Containing it from having unlimited unpredictable effects on our universe requires the naturalistic aspect of our universe to be able to contain it. Naturalism is the part with constraints, after all.

Most theists talk about the supernatural as though it were naturalistic, all safe and tidy with describable rules. Make up your minds!

Like I said earlier, evidence only exists to the extent at which we believe in it. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that by no means can God be proven. That claim is a scientific one, and while it may be directly accurate, it might very well not be accurate in an indirect sense. To some people, God has been proven to them for all intents and purposes. Whether there is truly an ultimate explanation or not, that doesn't mean everybody will believe it.

Even if somebody has an apparent perfect logical explanation, somebody can choose not to believe it because "I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster." or because "But that is refutable because X isn't a 100% perfect fact or because Y might not be correct logic."

That claim isn't a scientific one. It's precisely outside the remit of science to even attempt to prove that....

...and I don't know why you have to bring up the Bible as if it has default authority. I don't care what it says.

Whether you believe science can or can't prove that God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter, as that is the belief that the majority of atheists and secular scientists have adopted. At least the vocal minority. It is also that belief that has been treated as fact in schools and colleges around the world.

If that was the case, then I'd say that's exactly why it does matter.

It's good to have some who simply don't believe because of a lack of evidence, rather than simply because science appears to contradict such beliefs. However, you aren't really the target that needs convincing that the natural doesn't contradict the supernatural, nor do you need convincing that your a priori assumptions lead to the a Godless explanation, as you don't hold such assumptions.

Once again though, a large portion of the scientific community does. If only everyone I debated with held the belief that science isn't sufficient to disprove God, or that the only valid belief was that in science.

Hmmm, is this you in a roundabout way admitting that you were wrong to assume that science assumes god doesn't exist?

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

You are making assumptions on how the supernatural would interact with the natural world.

No, my conclusion is a consequence of refraining from making such assumptions, the ones you make. You and most theists treat the supernatural as though it were natural. But if there are any boundaries placed on its behaviour at all, then that makes it natural at those boundaries. Containing it from having unlimited unpredictable effects on our universe requires the naturalistic aspect of our universe to be able to contain it. Naturalism is the part with constraints, after all.

Most theists talk about the supernatural as though it were naturalistic, all safe and tidy with describable rules. Make up your minds!

The 'natural' world and the 'supernatural' world don't exist separate from one another.

You are making an assumption that the supernatural is able to do anything and therefore is always doing everything. You are also assuming that the supernatural world wouldn't be able to control itself to a point where the natural world wouldn't be able to coexist. You are also assuming that the supernatural world does not take constant action to keep the natural world's existence stable in the first place.

Your conclusion is based on all kinds of assumptions. You treat the supernatural as if it was some kind of animal, unable to control itself and destroying everything in its path by accident.

Like I said earlier, evidence only exists to the extent at which we believe in it. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that by no means can God be proven. That claim is a scientific one, and while it may be directly accurate, it might very well not be accurate in an indirect sense. To some people, God has been proven to them for all intents and purposes. Whether there is truly an ultimate explanation or not, that doesn't mean everybody will believe it.

Even if somebody has an apparent perfect logical explanation, somebody can choose not to believe it because "I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster." or because "But that is refutable because X isn't a 100% perfect fact or because Y might not be correct logic."

That claim isn't a scientific one. It's precisely outside the remit of science to even attempt to prove that....

...and I don't know why you have to bring up the Bible as if it has default authority. I don't care what it says.

Whether you believe science can or can't prove that God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter, as that is the belief that the majority of atheists and secular scientists have adopted. At least the vocal minority. It is also that belief that has been treated as fact in schools and colleges around the world.

If that was the case, then I'd say that's exactly why it does matter.

It's good to have some who simply don't believe because of a lack of evidence, rather than simply because science appears to contradict such beliefs. However, you aren't really the target that needs convincing that the natural doesn't contradict the supernatural, nor do you need convincing that your a priori assumptions lead to the a Godless explanation, as you don't hold such assumptions.

Once again though, a large portion of the scientific community does. If only everyone I debated with held the belief that science isn't sufficient to disprove God, or that the only valid belief was that in science.

Hmmm, is this you in a roundabout way admitting that you were wrong to assume that science assumes god doesn't exist?

Unbiased science, no, I never believed unbiased science assumed God didn't exist. Modern science however, as it is taught in schools and by famous naturalists, does assume such a thing, and that is the science I am referring to. That since science is correct, and our scientific findings 'contradict' a creator, that that must mean God doesn't exist.

Your conclusion is based on all kinds of assumptions. You treat the supernatural as if it was some kind of animal, unable to control itself and destroying everything in its path by accident.

These "assumptions" are necessary in order to avoid simply describing another hypothetical part of the natural universe. If you wish to define your god(s), etc., as natural...cool. But describing them as supernatural, as effectively being beyond order, requires that the things you've labelled as "assumptions" be true.

Whether you believe science can or can't prove that God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter, as that is the belief that the majority of atheists and secular scientists have adopted. At least the vocal minority. It is also that belief that has been treated as fact in schools and colleges around the world.

You seem to be listening to the prejudices of others here (added: This was poorly worded. I meant that you may have been listening to others when you wrote this, not that you were listening to others here on the site). Schools and colleges, as you say, teach science as we know it, and as we theorize it. They don't mention gods because none have been found in the various forms of research done within the scientific disciplines.

What do you want science teaching to be like? "This is how photosynthesis works, except somewhere in there a god is involved, we just don't know how. But be prepared to answer questions about him on the test." Is that what you prefer?

We know so little about reality that all we can do is try to figure out the stuff we experience and then extrapolate as far as we dare about other matters. That thousands of gods have been proposed, and none proven, means that either we ignore that contention or we figure out a way to add the christian and hindu and zoroastrian and aboriginal and native American and other gods to the curriculum and make stuff up as we go along. I have no idea what that would accomplish.

Now if you're upset that the physics folks working on the edge of knowledge aren't trying to fit god into the equation, that's fine. Just go get yourself as educated on physics and then come up with your own theory that includes deities and such. And let the scientific world try working out the specifics of your theory. But as of right now, even as mysterious as the universe it, there is no sign that gods or the supernatural are involved.

There are great mysteries, that perhaps can only be solved by gods or supernatural powers. We don't know that, but it is a possibility. We are still early in the learning process. The problem for theists is that as of now, we haven't had to invoke gods to explain anything quite yet. Our math doesn't show any, and our machines haven't discovered gods yet either. So we are forced, by default, to study only that which we can find evidence for. Anything involving gods would just plain have to be made up. I've no idea how one could work salt ladies into chemistry class, the flood into geology class, Eden into biology. Let alone biblical astronomy into the modern version of the subject.

If there are gods or the supernatural, they apparently don't want to be found, and prefer depending upon poorly passed-on ancient documents to supply all the knowledge of such things. Which, unsurprisingly, fail to meet any reasonable modern standards.

And an aside. If the earth was created in six days, 6,000 years ago or so, it sure shows no sign of either that speed or that age. Nothing science can find matches that story, and in fact everything found contradicts the tale. Nor is there any sign of floods or Babel or other audacious claims. And there is planty of evidence for the current theories about the age of our planet, which is that it is approximately 7,500,000 times older than the bible claims. Or the universe, which is almost 2,300,000 times older, as per all the evidence we can find.

So there are some of us that look at such evidence, and combine it with other insights, such as the lack of proof from any other sources regarding either gods or purpose, and draw the conclusion that the universe is a natural place, and here only for the natural physical reasons that caused it to exist, and no other explanation or rational is required. I am not so stupid as to assume that that assumption is absolutely correct. I am just saying that as of right now, I see no reason to think otherwise because any proof of other reasons/origins/god involvements are as of right now, non-existent.

And while I could spend my life guessing my ass off about what is going on, without any information to go on, all it would be is guesses. Or a decision to include ancient belief systems in my modern life. And I happen to be one who is not so inclined.

If religion had something definite to offer, like usable information or claims that were not so far from being reasonable, I would sit up and listen, but until a religious story comes along that matches observed reality, or successfully explains it away, I'm going to go with scientific findings and my own version of rationality over the myriad imaginings of others.